Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (20414)	1/9/2012 3:04:49 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

You probably need to stay away for awhile. Your anger has got the best of you. You can come back when you've cooled off and when you've studied the family of Israel's King David.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (20414)	1/9/2012 3:08:35 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 24758

The discussion stopped at my reply to you: Message 27858357 From: frankw1900 Let's change your mental experiment a little. Hell, no! Here and now is what matters. Outside of the fact that there is already a definition for the word "wealth", Definition of wealth as we normally see it is ambiguous if not outright misleading, your definition of wealth only works within the narrow confines of your culture at this specific time. So what? Everybody's idea of wealth whether conventional, or like that of me or our host's, is local. Sounds to me like we need a new word, not a new definition of an old word. The word's fine what's needed is descriptions, not definition. I appears folk don't like description – too much blood and guts and not enough abstractions. If that were true, then they wouldn't retain title of the house. Your capabilities and promise would be enough. The quality of your capabilities and promise will dictate the amount of risk the bank is willing to take, but your "wealth", by your definition, isn't enough for the bank to hand over the title. What?! The bank doesn't have title. I do. I buy the house, and the bank lends me money to do so. It has to have a lien against it in case I die or become disabled and can't pay. This isn't NINJA country – the bank makes the loan because the banker thinks I'm capable of paying and will keep my promise. We are immensely more wealthy in my sense of the word than in previous times of much fewer opportunities when slavery, or near to it, was a real threat. Folk had to indenture themselves, and sometimes their children, as security for loans. Still goes on in some places where what people do is clearly their wealth. ............................................................................................. .......................................................................................... Comment on your last post: People often regard their children as an "investment" or as "wealth". Either, in my view, is a mistake. You say: I used my involvement in my child's life to show a kind of wealth that is not transferable. What you show is that you are expending some of your real wealth - what you can do; your capability - on your child. Some people here say that's a bad idea. They can be rude as hell but they aren't stupid. It could be worthwhile investigating why they think so. There is a possibility that too much expenditure of what I see as your real wealth is, in this area, not just wasteful but harmful.